Mediated by a hermeneutic/semiotic reading of symbols, searching out and finding some similitudes between mythical constructions concerning the genesisof the world and scientific hypotheses can be considered fruitful from at least two viewpoints, since: (a) it allows the validation of a truth which is difficult to prove through other means, that early humans had intuitive-cognitive resources much more profound than appearances seem to allow; (b) it enables the utilization of some of the suggestions offered by the mythic language in the scientific language context. Using such correspondences, the author proposes the integrative model of a structurally named "Cluster Universe" or the functionally named "Pulsatory expansion", able to solve some major difficulties of the cosmological thinking.

The Russian icon was always related to the soul of the Russian painter, his anxiety and his emotions. Through the icon the russian has always expressed his faith and mentained the bundle with God. The icon has been considered by the russian people a bridge between human and divinity. The Russian people belive into an russian Christ. The Russian icon embodys the russian nature, his strength of creation and of adaption, but especially the russian soul. It is been capitalized the icon painting of the greatest painters: Andrei Rubliov, Teofan Grecul Dionisie, as well as icon painting, starting from the novgorodiana school (the 11th century) till the 20th century, when big names of icon artists appared, such as Kondrafiev, Filatov, Zubov, A. Ivanov.

Reflections or Dialogicals: Ways for Making up an Ethics. This purpose of this article is to analyze the relationship between reason and ethics in the thoughts ofLéon Brunschvicg and Gaston Bachelard. It will demonstrate that although the positions of these two authors have points in common as far as the development of their philosophical trajectories, there are also profound divergences in regards to their ethical conceptions. In affirming the passage from intellectual reason to moral consciousness, the ethical humanism of Brunschvicg takes as foundation a monological conception of reason. In showing that the constitution of ethical principles is modeled after the dialogical nature of the scientific city, Bachelard opts for a conception of reason and ethics that passes thorough a reflection on the path taken by man, a path filled with contradictions, but that it is nonetheless as true as the one established by Brunschvicg.

Testing the other. It is nowadays a commonplace of academic discourse on social sciences, especially when it comes to such disciplines as anthropology and semiotics, to oppose the old (and old-fashioned) methods of the “structuralists” to post-modern and post-structural epistemological attitudes. Structuralism, it is said, was based on the idea that it is possible to apprehend the meaning of cultural productions from an exterior and therefore objective standpoint, just by making explicit their immanent principles of organization. Today, on the contrary, a totally distinct approach of cultural productions would stem from the consciousness of a strict interdependence, or even of an identity in nature between subject and object at all levels of the process of knowledge, at least in the area of the humanities. However, such a crude opposition proves insufficient when one observes the effective practices of current research. The example here analysed is the account given by the American anthropologist Paul Rabinow of his first mission abroad: Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. The analysis, based on the use of a semiotic modelling of interaction, consists in exploring the variety of positions respectively adopted by the anthropologist and his informants according to circumstances and contexts. Four regimes are in principle distinguishable: programmation, based on regularity and predictability of the actors’ behaviour, manipulation, based on some kind of contractualization of their relationships, adjustment, based upon reciprocal sensitivity and various strategies permitting to both partners of the interaction to test one another, and a regime of consent to the unexpected or the unforeseeable. The main result of the analysis resides in the possibility of showing that at each of these styles of pragmatic interaction corresponds a specific regime at the cognitive level as well. This leads tostressing the complexity, if not heterogeneity, of the strategies of knowledge involved at various stages of anthropological research, from the collection ofdata to the cooperative production of new forms of understanding. Taking the risk of generalization, one might also consider the interactional device, which ishere tested through the reading of P. Rabinow’s report as a metatheoretical model describing the various epistemological stances at work and at stake in thepractices of research in social sciences at large.

From the semiotics of theatrical representation to cultural anthropology or why theater (resists)? In this paper I propose an epistemological approach to the field of theatre semiotics from the beginning of the 20th century to our days. Firstly, I point out two different periods that have influenced theatre semiotics. The first one centres on reflections and studies by the Prague School of Structuralism. More precisely, I address Jan Mukařovsky’s essays about art and society as well as Jindrich Honzl’s contributions to the study of sign and system in theatre. The second period presented here is that of theatre semiotics in the early 70s and late 80s in France.My goal here is to expose the main reasons that led theatre semiotics to a deadlock in the early 90s. Theatre semiotic research has been rich and fruitful in the beginning of last century. However, in our days it is generally deemed unadvisable to describe theatre representation in terms of sign and system.Although theatre semiotics used to be presented in French university classes, it is no longer possible to do so.Even though general semiotics has progressed by denying the importance of structure and by refusing to search for the minimal sign and its code, theatre semiotics has remained faithful to old communicational semiotics research.Throughout my contribution, I would like to examine the kind of semiotic field best fit to approaching an artistic domain such as theatre. In other words, I would like to show that Western theatre, granted it can be seen as a semiotic object, is first and foremost an artistic and cultural one.In order to do so, I propose a theoretical and methodological framework based on a specific semiotic model: the “indicial semiology” proposed by Anne-Marie Houdebine. Inspired by Juri Lotman’s essays about culture and art, I will try to set “indicial semiology” in the general field of a cultural anthropology.

Speaking about oneself in order to change the world. Juri Vella is a Forest Nenets reindeer herder, writer and fighter for his people’s rights. In his private life, he enjoys silence, as it is a rule in his culture. But the public man, who is graduated from the Literature Institute in Moscow, is aware of the power of speech, and knows how to use it for his goals, to support his vision. He had to realise that the native peoples in Western Siberia have lost much of their skills and acquired none during the Soviet period, in which they were compelled to integrate in the society and to attend Soviet institutions as school or the army. This process has been intensified in the latest fifty years, with the invasion of their traditional territories by oil industry. But Juri Vella expects the oil reserves to finish one day, and then the aborigines will lack the goods bestowed upon them by “Western” society and will have to survive with the help of the traditional skills. He tries to promote his vision of the natives able to live in both worlds and able to recover their dignity. This article analyses his public speech in this behalf and the way Juri Vella speaks about himself, enlarging his “ego” both to his clan and the native peoples in general and connecting it very directly with the space around him. The mainsources are Eva Toulouze’s fieldwork at Juri Vella’s taiga camp, living with the family five months, and the film Liivo Niglas has shot about him in 2003.

Semiotic square and the interpretation of myths. Greimas’ semiotic square is built upon the hypothesis that the concept of elementary structure of signification is operational only if subjected to a logical interpretation and formulation. However, Greimas’ commentaries on that model are questionable. On the one hand, he asserts that logical nature of the connection between any two terms, s1 and s2, is undetermined; on the other hand, he provides the relations s1 – non s1, s2 – non s2, s1 – non s2 and s2 – non s1 with a logical status. Now, since these two statements are inconsistent, a choice must be made: either these four relations have a logical significance, and then the semiotic square is a logical square, so that s1 – s2 has to be interpreted as an incompatibility relation; or s1 – s2 has no logical meaning, and then not only the status of the other relations given in the model is not logical either, but also the simple fact of applying negation to the terms s1 ands2 is meaningless.That dilemma follows from an argument, that Greimas has laid down as a principle, under which linguistic communication depends on the existence of a deep level (or immanent level) of the significance, that is supposed to precede its manifestation in speech. If, conversely, we assume that significance is produced at discursive level, and that consequently the patterning of linguistic codes relies on what could be called a semantic sedimentation process, which comes out from linguistic activity, there is no more dilemma.Such a thesis, which implies that the elementary structure of signification must be seen as the schematization by the describer of speakers’ mental activity, leads to a point of view inversion. Nevertheless, the two conditions which, according to Greimas, are required for catching the meaning are still relevant, except that, contrary to Greimas’ opinion, they now apply at the speech level: two discursive units can be opposed if they simultaneously include a common feature which join them, and a distinguishing feature which disjoin them.

The construction of memory in colonial Eritrea: Eritreans, Mestizos and Italians. Focusing on some passages of life histories collected in Asmara and based on the ‘memory of Italy’, I study the representation of the past in order to reveal the shaping of the subjective experience by the colonial discourse in Eritrea. If the main aim of my essay is the understanding of the play of interactions between individuals and collectivity, one more important element I take into account is ‘memory’ seen as a “social selection of remembering” (Halbwachs). I try to connect the social position and narrative role of single members (of the Eritrean society) to the meaning it takes the ‘going back to the past’ for them as individuals belonging to a group (an Eritrean, a Mestizo, an Italian) in relation to the past and the present. The consequence is that the logic dominant/dominated is inadequate to explain the internal articulations of the colonial context and that the focus must be shifted on individual and collective systems of expectations and on the negotiations of meaning resulting from a “past always to be recovered” and a “present always to be rebuilt”.

Further Questions. A Way Out of the Present Philosophical Situation(via Merleau-Ponty)This essay contains a short analysis of Merleau-Ponty’s Eye and Mind. The analysis focuses on the final pages of Eye and Mind, in which Merleau-Ponty speaks of a false imaginary. It is through this consideration of the “false imaginary” that we can determine Merleau-Ponty’s contribution to the idea of overcoming metaphysics, that is, the transformation of who we are, from manipulandum to being, all of us, painters. More generally however, the short analysis of Eye and Mind functions as the means to open a research agenda for what we have called in the twentieth century “continental philosophy.” The research agenda contains four conceptual features: 1) the starting point in immanence (where immanence is understood fi rst as internal, subjective experience, but then, due to the universality of the epoche, immanence is understood as ungrounded experience); 2) difference (where difference gives way to multiplicity, itself emancipated from an absolute origin and an absolute purpose); 3) thought (where thought is understood as language liberated from the constraints of logic, and language is understood solely in terms of its own being, as indefi nite continuous variation); and 4) the overcoming of metaphysics (where metaphysics is understood as a mode of thinking based in presence, and overcoming is understood as the passage to a new mode of thought, a new people and a new land). But, as we shall see, this conception of philosophy really ends up posing “further questions.” My essay attempts to summarize my new book called Early Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).Altre domande. Una via d’uscita dalla situazione fi losofi ca attuale(via Merleau-Ponty)Questo saggio contiene una breve analisi de L’occhio e lo spirito di Merleau-Ponty. L’analisi si concentra sulle pagine conclusive dell’opera, nelle quali Merleau-Ponty parla di un falso immaginario. È attraverso l’esame di tale “falso immaginario” che possiamo determinare il contributo di Merleau-Ponty all’idea di un superamento della metafisica, ovvero la trasformazione di chi noi siamo, da manipulandum ad essere, noi tutti, pittori. Più in generale, la breve analisi de L’occhio e lo spirito funziona come mezzo per aprire un programma di ricerca per quella che nel XX secolo abbiamo defi nito “filosofi a continentale”. Tale piano di ricerca presenta quattro aspetti concettuali: 1) il punto di partenza nell’immanenza (laddove l’immanenza è intesa dapprima come esperienza interna soggettiva, ma successivamente, a causa dell’universalità dell’epoché, essa è compresa in quanto esperienza non fondata); 2) la differenza (laddove la differenza apre la via della molteplicità, emancipandosi da un’origine e da un fine assoluti); 3) pensiero (inteso come linguaggio liberato dai vincoli della logica, e compreso solamente nei termini del suo essere proprio, come variazione continua e indefinita); e 4) il superamento della metafisica (laddove per metafisica si intende un modo di pensare basato sulla presenza e per superamento s’intende il passaggio ad una nuova modalità del pensiero, un nuovo popolo ed una nuova terra). Ma, come vedremo, questa concezione della filosofi a finisce per porre “ulteriori domande”. Tale saggio si propone anche di compiere una sintesidel mio nuovo libro Early Twentieth Century Continental Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).

The Political Imaginary.Reflections on Merleau-Ponty’s reading of MachiavelliThis essay attempts to set in relief an aspect of Merleau-Ponty’s political thought that has still received little study: his conception of the political imaginary. This fertile aspect of his political thought appears explicitly in his reading of Machiavelli as it is developed in “Note on Machiavelli”, which appeared for the first time in 1949. In this note, Merleau-Ponty treats the specific problem of power. In trying to characterize this, Merleau-Ponty comes to discover the inevitably imaginary dimension of the political space.To begin, this essay retraces the aim and scope of Machiavelli’s thought, while bringing to the fore those aspects in his political reflections that are properly imaginary. Next, the essay compares these reflections to those Merleau-Ponty had on the political imaginary in the same period as his courses on childpsychology at the Sorbonne (held between 1949 and 1952). Following the descriptions of the phenomenon of the imaginary, this time from the phenomenological point of view, the third and final section of this essay will articulate the analyses of the “Note on Machiavelli” together with the theoreticaljustification of the political imaginary and will show how these analyses are inscribed in the heart of Merleau-Ponty’s path. We will then discover how thephenomenon of the imaginary is intimately linked to the constitution of the self and the other, the body and the intersubjective world, and how this problematicobliges us to pose the question of the symbolic.Across this path, the essay will aim to show how Merleau-Ponty’s reading of Machiavelli allows us to think in a new way about diverse ideas and traditionsand to articulate afresh the meaning and scope of the properly political dimension of human praxis.L’immaginario politico.Riflessioni sulla lettura merleau-pontyana di MachiavelliQuesto saggio intende mettere in rilievo un aspetto ancora poco studiato del pensiero politico di Merleau-Ponty, la sua concezione dell’immaginario politico. Tale fecondo aspetto della riflessione merleau-pontiana sul politico appare esplicitamente nella lettura di Machiavelli svolta nella «Nota su Machiavelli» (1949). In questo testo Merleau-Ponty affronta il problema specifico del potere, ed è nel tentativo di caratterizzare il potere stesso che Merleau-Ponty scopre la dimensione inevitabilmente immaginaria dello spazio politico.In un primo momento, il saggio ricostruisce l’intenzione e la portata del pensiero di Machiavelli mettendo in luce gli aspetti legati all’immaginario presenti nella sua riflessione politica. In un secondo momento, il saggio mette a confronto tali riflessioni con quelle svolte da Merleau-Ponty sul medesimo tema dell’immaginario nei corsi dedicati alla psicologia dell’età evolutiva, tenuti alla Sorbona tra il 1949 e il 1952. In un terzo momento, ripercorrendo le descrizioni del fenomeno immaginario, questa volta dal punto di vista fenomenologico, il saggio articola le analisi svolte nella «Nota su Machiavelli» con la giustificazione teorica di questa stessa nozione di immaginario del politico ; ricolloca tali analisi all’interno del complessivo percorso merleaupontyano; mostra come il fenomeno dell’immaginario sia intimamente legato alla costituzione stessa dell’io e dell’altro, del corpo e del mondo intersoggettivo; come tale problematica renda infine necessario porre il problema del simbolico.L’insieme del percorso svolto nel presente saggio mostra quindi come la lettura merleau-pontyana di Machiavelli consenta di pensare in modo inedito nozioni e tradizioni differenti, nonché di articolare in maniera rinnovata il senso e la portata della dimensione propriamente politica della praxis umana.

Being and Negativity. The Thinking of the Subjective-Objective in Merleau-Ponty and GrimaldiThe thought of Maurice Merleau-Ponty is distinguished at the outset from that of Nicolas Grimaldi as much by their methodological commitments as by the place each one accords to time. Nevertheless, their adoption of a double point of view on the human being – as at the same time consciousness and object – justifies bringing them together. Confronted to its full extent, the problem of the subjective-objective implies the development of a monistic ontology and authorizes the critique that Merleau-Ponty and Grimaldi both address to Sartre and Bergson. In thinking a negativity internal to Being, the two authors come to restore an authentic passivity of mind, inaccessible to the dialectic of being and nothingness. Their philosophical paths diverge conclusively in the solution each brings to this common problem : whereas Merleau-Ponty only sees an apparent contradiction in the duality of points of view, one that is to be lifted by reworking them, Grimaldi’s realism maintains the contradiction at the heart of a substantial unity conceived as time.Essere e negatività. Il pensiero del soggettivo-oggettivo in Merleau-Ponty e GrimaldiIl pensiero di Maurice Merleau-Ponty e di Nicolas Grimaldi si distinguono, ad un primo sguardo, sia per la loro presa di posizione metodologica che per il ruolo che rispettivamente accordano al tempo. Ciononostante, la loro presa in considerazione di un doppio punto di vista sull’uomo – compreso alo stesso tempo come coscienza e come oggetto – giustifica un loro confronto. Affrontato in tutta la sua ampiezza, il problema del soggettivo-oggettivo implica lo sviluppo di un’ontologia monista ed autorizza le critiche che Merleau-Ponty e Grimaldi rivolgono entrambi a Sartre e Bergson. Pensando ad una negatività interna all’Essere, i due autori giungono a restaurare una passività autentica dello spirito, inaccessibile alla dialettica tra essere e niente. In definitiva, le due vie filosofiche considerate in questo saggio divergono rispetto alla soluzione che essi forniscono a questo problema comune : mentre Merleau-Ponty vede nella dualità dei punti di vista una mera contraddizione apparente che si tratta di eliminare riformulandoli, il realismo grimaldiano mantiene la contraddizione inseno ad un’unità sostanziale concepita in termini di tempo.